The Complainant is Rolls-Royce plc of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is John Holt of Owerri, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 21, 2017. On September 22, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 23, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 29, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 19, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 20, 2017.
The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant has registered the trademark ROLLS-ROYCE in many jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States of America, e.g., trademark registration number UK00000302443 for ROLLS-ROYCE, registered on April 22, 1908.
The Complainant has also registered a number of domain names and its primary domain name is .
The Complainant is a global company known for producing engines and particularly aero engines. It has been in operation for more than a century.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 8, 2017. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant owns the trademark ROLLS-ROYCE through a number of registrations. When conducting a comparison, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) should be ignored. The disputed domain name is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. It is as a result an attempt of typosquatting. The only difference between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is an additional hyphen which in no way eliminates confusing similarity.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use its trademark nor is it affiliated to it. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In fact, the disputed domain name was used for the purpose of “phishing”. The disputed domain name resolves to a blank page. There is therefore no demonstrated attempt to make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. The registration of the disputed domain name took place far after the registration of the first trademark by the Complainant and after its registration of its own domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The trademark ROLLS-ROYCE is known internationally and has been in use since 1904, and registrations of the trademark exist across the world. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s business and its trademark as the disputed domain name replicates the trademark of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to defraud customers of the Complainant and extract amounts from them pretending it is the Complainant. The Respondent has created the disputed domain name for the purposes of phishing. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations for the trademark ROLLS-ROYC E. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark ROLLS-ROYCE.
The disputed domain name comprises the trademark of the Complainant simply adding to it an additional hyphen. The addition of the hyphen does not in any manner eliminate confusion. In fact, it is the Panel’s view that such conduct is typoquatting, which by its nature involves a highly confusingly similar domain name.
The gTLD “.com” should be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademark ROLLS-ROYCE is a well-known trademark worldwide. Hence, the Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The bad faith use of the disputed domain name is clear from the fact that the trademark ROLLS-ROYCE is well-known and the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent with the aim of extracting money or personal information from the customers of the Complainant. The Respondent is impersonating the Complainant by sending out emails using the disputed domain name. Through these emails, the Respondent appears to be issuing and/or discussing the payment of invoices. This is clearly a bad faith use of the disputed domain name as it is an attempt to defraud customers of the Complainant and obtain funds illegitimately.
Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: November 20, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy